Time to fire our gurus

Thanks to my friend Randy, I got turned on to Tijn Touber's thoughtful piece, "D.I.Y. Guru." (For the acronym impaired, like me, D.I.Y. stands for "do it yourself").

I liked it. It fits with my understanding of how we should regard a guru – as someone begging to be fired.

So it's time to fire our gurus (facts, truths, religious persuasions, principles, dogmas) so the guru in ourselves can emerge. It's time to become as great as the gurus we followed--just as authentic, unique and obstinate.

This is not an act of aggression or disrespect. On the contrary, it is an act of love and gratitude. The greatest compliment we can pay our gurus, coaches and therapists is to make clear that we no longer need them. The treatment was successful; the guru died.

Any guru who wants lifetime employment as the disciple's lord and master isn't worthy of being followed. Yet too often spiritual seekers end up in a position of fawning dependence that stifles their growth.

An unequal relationship means there is a glass ceiling the follower can barely penetrate. To grow beyond the master is difficult, particularly when you are taught not to trust your own wisdom.

Today my Tai Chi instructor talked about Bruce Lee, who is generally regarded as the greatest martial artist of the twentieth century.

He said that Lee never took on any title. Not "Sifu," not "Sensei," not "Master." He was just Bruce Lee, himself. Yet he clearly knew his martial arts stuff and could teach with the best of them.

One of the comments on the Ode Magazine web site, where the piece was originally published, says that the true translation of the Sanskrit word "guru" is "teacher."

It seems that once again, the West has taken a word with quite a simple meaning and message from another part of the world and misunderstood it, or even deliberately manipulated it perhaps?

A good teacher is someone who indeed inspires us with their teachings and to learn, but also makes it very clear that it's the teachings that are the only important thing. All those I have had the privilege to come into contact with have stressed the absolute necessity of not taking their word for anything, but to find out the truth for oneself.

Absolutely, it's an absolute necessity to be your own D.I.Y . guru. Bruce Lee's philosophy encourages this.

I'm not a master. I'm a student-master, meaning that I have the knowledge of a master and the expertise of a master, but I'm still learning. So I'm a student-master. I don't believe in the word "master." I consider the master as such when they close the casket.

Comments

[william]

Every person has the greatest guru in the universe within them. It is called God, spirit, or a better term may be pure awareness. This pure awareness has vitality and is the essence or energy that pervades the universe.

Finding that pure awareness or guru within is the journey. If that pure awareness were not hidden from us there could be no expression of this pure awareness that most call God.

A master would be someone that “helps” one find that guru within.

[tao]

Balderdash.

Nothing is "hidden" from us. There is no "guru within". In fact, there is no guru at all. "God", "spirit", and "awareness" are merely words. There is no "journey" either, and there never was. There are no masters and no one needs any help. Everything is fine just as it is.

[Tucson]

The guru-disciple relationship, in my opinion, only reinforces duality, the perception of a separate self that needs help to achieve salvation by something else. As long as pure awareness is seen as being centered in a phenomenal object(ouselves) we are trapped in mis-identification which is seeing things as 'me here' and that 'out there'. However, to say that one could not wake up as a result of association with a guru is not necessarily true. Via bhakti, intense devotion, one may lose this sense of separate self, or they may not. This is not in anyone's control, not even the guru's. If the guru is honest he will say so. If the guru says the disciple is lacking in devotion, or his karmic burden is heavy, or he is performing the spiritual practices incorrectly, and this is why the disciple is not making progress, then the guru is as deluded as the disciple. What a set up! There is a big ego, power trip or business involved. Run like the wind from such an imposter.

Getting rid of this identified center is all that needs to be done, but this can't be accomplished as an act of will by this mis-identified center or by a dreamed character known as the guru. Rather, it is a spontaneous perception where pure awareness is free of interference by an imagined self. So, through personal effort as an identified 'me', one could meditate or perform actions designed to effect self-realization for a thousand years and there would be no change in this basic mis-identification. Or, spontaneously, one could be walking in the park, hear a bird chirp and suddenly wake up with no effort.

Buddha made clear in the Diamond Sutra that sentient beings aren't 'there' at all as such, so how can they evolve, expand in awareness or wake up? Sentient beings exist only as concepts and objects, as appearance in mind, but as such they are not substantive. So, how can such an imagined thing wake up? How can an imagined guru wake up an imagined disciple?

Pure-awareness is awake and always has been, but it has become identified with its own dreamed object known as 'I' or 'me'. This is hard to explain because it is a non-action and appears to contradict what I just said...that subjective pure awareness is always awake, yet it is the subjective pure awareness that 'wakes up', not the dreamed object known as 'me'. I can't force myself to wake up because 'I' am the dream. The dream is a dream. It can't wake itself up. Only the dreamer wakes up, and the dreamer is not any sort of 'thing' that can be known. All it can say when it wakes up is, "I am that, but it can't know itself as an object without the whole merry-go-round starting up again.

In RSSB and other traditions and paths, the term "Sohang" is well known. Sohang means 'I am that'. In RSSB, Sohang is the fourth region (level of consciousness) with only Sach Khand, the highest region, to 'follow'. In Sach Khand there would be only 'that' with no self awareness at all to say even 'I am That'.

So it would be just That, or better, just This. That's it.

[Rakesh Bhasin]

There seem to be two distinct groups in the field of progress in spirituality. That is, achievers and non-achievers. They are in water tight compartments. Both groups do not want to see each other, for a fear that they may go astray. It is solely dependent upon one alone to adjudge as to who falls in which one category. Left to others, each one of us would like to put the other in the opposite group as one may deem oneself fit.

Non-achievers are a better lot which is still struggling, harder working and have more knowledge. Yet both groups have evolved through a sustained guru- disciple relationship.

Depending upon one's experience, the achievers and non-achievers can be interchanged. "Time to fire our gurus" or "time to hire gurus" has two things in common i.e. time and guru. Every time one has a guru (teacher) in every walk of life and firing or hiring is an incessant phenomenon.

Kindly do no ask me which group I belong, for the above stated reason!!!!!!!!!!

[william]

“Everything is fine just as it is” tell that to the Iraqi being tortured while his family watches him die a very painful death. Or maybe to the Iraqi that has to watch his wife and daughters being raped, tortured, and then killed before he himself is tortured to death.

Do you advaita types have an ounce of compassion in your consciousness? This quoted statement above is beyond neurotic but falls into the category of psychosis. Oh the power of religious paradigms where my truth is thee truth.

Please seek mental help as soon as possible. The Buddha’s main teachings were about compassion and overcoming our ignorance. There are old souls and new souls on earth and with statements like that I suspect you are a new soul.

You read a book on Tao and spit those insane statements out like it is absolute truth. You have completely misunderstood the teachings of Tao.

The world is perfectly imperfect and considering the present level of human consciousness everything is right were it needs to be at this moment.

[Deepak Kamat]

As long as we are in duality, we are seemingly in need of a spiritual Guru -- real or imaginary.

Of course, I have not yet found a "perfect Master" who could leave his body, mind and soul at will. When I am able to have perfect control over myself, then maybe I will fire my (non-existent) Guru. Till then, duality and delusions prevail.

[Tucson]

Tao said: "Everything is just fine as it is."

Then William calls Tao "insane" for saying it and then says it himself.."The world is perfectly imperfect and considering the present level of human consciousness everything is right were it needs to be at this moment."

Who's the insane one?

********

regarding souls.. How can a soul be old or new?

[william]

Tucson without seeing the journey of the soul my words will mean nothing to you. Very few in the world understand the phase perfectly imperfect.

Most people have turned their beliefs into a religion and defend them as if they are absolutes. That is the power of paradigms. My truths become thee truths.

Profound difference between perfectly imperfect and everything is fine the way it is. Sorry you are unable to see that difference.

As far as suggesting Tao seek mental help that I apologize for. That was uncalled for. Defensive move I suspect. Working on that one as I do not believe in everything is fine the way it is.

[Tucson]

William, but you didn't you say, "...everything is right were it needs to be at this moment."

Yet you object to Tao saying, "Everything is just fine as it is." by stating, "Profound difference between perfectly imperfect and everything is fine the way it is. Sorry you are unable to see that difference."

--Please explain.

[tAo]

William, as usual, you are full of contradiction, confusion, and an obviously immature compulsion to be the little smart-ass who understands while others do not. But the reality is that you're a fuckin idiot.

My saying: "Everything is fine just as it is" is philosophical in nature, and not about Iraq. And what the fuck would you know about war anyway? Have you ever fought in a war? You obviously have not. Only an idiot and a poseur would respond as you have.

"You read a book on Tao and spit those insane statements out like it is absolute truth. You have completely misunderstood the teachings of Tao."

Wrong again peabrain. And speaking of having "misunderstood", you are pathetic. Fyi little grasshopper, I don't "read books on Tao", nor am I a Taoist.

William writes: "The world is perfectly imperfect and considering the present level of human consciousness everything is right were it needs to be at this moment."

To which another quote by William is rather appropos: "This quoted statement above is beyond neurotic but falls into the category of psychosis. Please seek mental help as soon as possible."

William also writes (within quotation marks): "Very few in the world understand the phase perfectly imperfect."

How typical. Need I say more?

"Most people have turned their beliefs into a religion and defend them as if they are absolutes."

Talking about yourself again huh William? Tsk tsk.

"My truths become thee truths."

Yes, we all know how you think. That's been quite obvious for a long time.

"Profound difference between perfectly imperfect and everything is fine the way it is."

Doesn't sound that way to me.

"Sorry you are unable to see that difference."

How typical of you.

"I do not believe in everything is fine the way it is."

Don't worry grasshopper... you'll come around sooner or later. It's perfectly inevitable.

[william]

"How can a soul be old or new?"

The journey of the soul.

Consciousness is asleep in the rocks.

Consciousness begins to awaken in the plants.

Consciousness attains desires in the animal.

Consciousness attains a self-identity in humans.

Consciousness awakens to the reality of its divinity and ability to create and becomes as gods.

Consciousness becomes and returns to that that is: pure awareness.

It appears that it is the necessity of infinite pure awareness to express itself. We are part of that expression.

Nature appears to be one big process of developing souls. Very Hinduism but does anyone know it is not a reality.

Many will pretend they know but that is the mentality of the human mind.

[william]

Statements by Tao: “But the reality is that you're a fuckin idiot”

“Only an idiot and a poseur would respond as you have.”

“Wrong again peabrain. And speaking of having "misunderstood", you are pathetic.”

Oh Tao: don’t you see how this defensiveness is based in doubt not certainty. When that kind of anger comes out that is a sign of doubt and your projecting that doubt on to others. It is just too painful to deal with at this time.

Definition of Tao: “In Taoism, the basic, eternal principle of the universe that transcends reality and is the source of being, non-being, and change.”

Hey Tao may want to consider changing you name. Not sure your words represent the eternal principal of the universe. Why get upset with my words. Who cares what I think. You have decided I am a peabrain and an idiot; have compassion not anger with me. If you were comfortable with your beliefs my words would mean nothing to you.

This is the point I have been making since day one on this blog. Our paradigms are so powerful if anyone says anything to challenge our cherished paradigms we attack with statements like above.

By using those words you are trying to invalidate me as a person. This gives your ego some comfort in its beliefs if I am not a person. This qualifies you as an Invalidator. You may want to go with that name rather than Tao.

Kind of like Vietnam vets calling the Viet Cong “gooks”. They were trying to invalidate them as humans so when they killed them it helped them deal with their consciousness for killing another human. It did not appear to work because now more Vietnam vets have committed suicide then died in that conflict. They made them subhuman by calling them that horrible derogatory name. In Iraq those that are resisting our occupation we call them terrorists. Same strategy, different war and occupation.

Oh one synonym for poseur is positive feedback.

[tAo]

You know nothing about me William, and so you are an idiot because you actually think that you do. Your comments are litte more than pseudo spiritual rubbish. You're just another typical wannabe with no experience.

"Who cares what I think ... I am a peabrain and an idiot"

Glad to see that you admit it.

"If you were comfortable with your beliefs my words would mean nothing to you."

Another example of your peabrain. You still haven't got the message yet have you? I have no "beliefs", only observations.

"Our paradigms are so powerful if anyone says anything to challenge our cherished paradigms we attack".

You mean YOUR "paradigms".

"you are trying to invalidate me as a person."

I don't need to because you have already invalidated yourself numerous times with all the nonsense that you post.

"Kind of like Vietnam vets calling..."

Just more obvious proof that you are an immature little punk who knows absolutely nothing about Vietnam.

[william]

Yet you object to Tao saying, "Everything is just fine as it is." by stating, "Profound difference between perfectly imperfect and everything is fine the way it is. Sorry you are unable to see that difference."
--Please explain.
Very difficult to explain without long dialog. Everything is not fine the way it is; there is much pain, suffering, and feelings of separation due to our *ignorance. The world may be imperfect but it is giving a perfect response to the ignorance (not knowing) that is still within our consciousness. The divine principle of karma is giving perfect feedback to this ignorance or not knowing status of our consciousness. That is the perfect part of perfectly imperfect.

The imperfect part is that our consciousness is less than perfect love and intelligence. That is the imperfect part of perfectly imperfect. All thoughts and actions have within them feedback (karma) (what we sow we reap) and it is that feedback that is perfectly suited to provide us guidance to overcome our ignorance. Without that feedback little if any evolution or unfoldment of the soul would occur. The soul would remain static not dynamic.

Many judge ignorance as sin and teach that we have the free will to separate ourselves from God. It is impossible to separate ourselves from our source. Think of it this way: we are that source in disguise. We are disguised as separate souls on a perceived journey. *Ignorance is mandatory for the dynamic expression of oneness to occur. Oneness becomes perceived twoness (or more) through ignorance.

The origin of our suffering is ignorance. The origin of that ignorance is innocence. The origin of that innocence is expression/creation/manifestation/unfoldment. The origin of that expression is pure awareness with attributes of perfect love and intelligence.

Christians and neo cons love the idea that sin and lack of personal responsibility is due to innocence and not free will. NOT! At this stage of our human consciousness the concept of free will is needed to satisfy the ego: i.e. our false perceived separate self.

* Ignorance is simply not knowing or unawareness.

[Tucson]

* Ignorance is simply not knowing or unawareness.

What is unaware, a soul? What is there to be known, a God? Whatever is conceived as unaware is another conceived object but not the awareness that is perceiving it. This awareness can never be known as an object. In other words, I can never know truth, I can only be truth. It is not an intellectual process. As subject I hear, see, feel.. for as subject I am action, but what seems to do it is object. This is the mis-identification I speak of. We can't conceive our subjective aspect in the same way an eye can't see itself. That is the only ignorance, identification with the object conceived as "I". What I appear to be can never be anything but what I appear to be, and whatever I am can't be anything but enlightened..whatever that may be. It can't be known as such without perpetuating the illusion. So enlightenment is..not.

There is an old story of ten monks travelling together seeking enlightenment. They come to a swift-running river and cross it. When they reach the other side each monk counts the others to make sure they all made it safely accross.

In doing so, each monk could only count nine and they began to grieve the loss of their tenth comrade. A traveller passing by counts the monks and assures them that all ten are present, but after counting themselves again the monks were not convinced. The traveller shrugs his shoulders and continued on his way.

One monk went to the riverside and knelt on a rock over a clear pool to wash his tear-stained face and sees his reflection. He rushes back to his fellow monks to report that he has found their lost comrade drowned at the bottom of the deep pool, and each in turn goes to take a look. When all had seen their poor dead comrade they hold a funeral service in his memory.

The traveller on his way back asked the monks what they were doing, and when told, assured them that since each monk was honoring his own death, and since all were honoring the death of each, they all were truly dead.

Upon hearing this each monk instantly awakened and returned to their monastery to the delight of their Master.

The tenth man is the only man and there is no other.

[william]

“What is there to be known”

That we are that that is and as our consciousness evolves we “attain” the vitality, intelligence, and creativity of that that is. We continue to have rebirths until we attain that level of consciousness and finally we arrive at the doorstep of pure awareness whence we came.

Buddhism is a religion just like Christianity and must be read with extreme care.

All the words we say at this level of our conscious development are only intellectual statements and concepts. We are gods in the making but as humans we are very young in this process of consciousness development. Our egos pretend to know reality and want to be known for knowing. The universe has many more mysteries to reveal to us.

If the monks want to think they are dead and lifeless so be it. Because they do not see the evolution of the soul they assume they don’t exist. Form is not an illusion. They are the living expression of that pure awareness most call God. What is an illusion due to our ignorance is that we believe and act like we are a separate self. Such as signing our names and blogging on here.

Next time you make a reservation at a motel or at a restaurant when they ask for your credit card or name say “I am sorry but I am dead and don’t exist”. See how that goes for you.

Because of this oneness in a war like Iraq or Vietnam when we kill Iraqis or Vietnamese we are killing ourselves.

Enlightenment is in the eyes of the beholder and has many different meanings to many different people. No one operational definition of enlightenment exists.

If you want to go though life and don’t believe you exist and that you are dead like the monks and you do not have to learn anything or that your consciousness is not evolving and that karma does not exist that is fine.

The universe will give you, me, and everyone lessons until we do evolve to greater and greater heights of intelligence, love, compassion, and creativity. The law of progress demands it.

[Tucson]

"If the monks want to think they are dead and lifeless so be it. Because they do not see the evolution of the soul they assume they don’t exist."

You just don't get it William. I am tempted to say you are stuck in "paradigm paralysis", but I may be accused of being a smart-ass, so I won't.

Re: reincarnation.

Let's say that what we really are is whatever Absolute really is. As such,'we' are never born and therefore could not possibly die except as appearance only. So, what about people who believe they were Napoleon or Joan-of-Ark in a past life? Of course they were, and so was I, and so were you because what is there to be born but appearance of flesh and bone anyway? So, am I saying I have always been alive and so will never be dead? No. I am saying that I have never been alive, so I can never be dead. "I" am only an idea. If you don't see this now, don't worry, you will...

Who thinks that he has a self? Another self?

And who conceives that second self?

Still another self?

Evidently.

But that can go on indefinitely, an endless progression of selves conceiving themselves, which becomes meaningless and absurd in determining who we are.

We are told in certain traditions to get rid of the self, but if any of these sequential selves is absurd, or illusory, how about the first?

It was never there. It is just as impossible and absurd as any self in the endless progression.

Who conceives the first self?..THIS which is not any 'thing' except as appearance as "Joe", "Mary", "William", "Tucson" or "Rita".

So we ask any one of them, "Who are you?"

Anyone can say, "I who am no 'thing' am everything." The beetle can say it too.

Any of them is everything else and no 'thing' at all at the same time.

We can know ourselves as appearance and still know we are not.

The actual realization of this, however, is not an intellectual process that words will ever encompass to anyone's satisfaction, but it can be 'seen' intuitively.

How? It just happens.

For those who like to think in linear sequentiality:

If there is time you will be dead, sequentially, forever, so weren't you also not born yet, sequentially, forever?

Saying it another way: Even before the beginning time passed endlessly even though there were no clocks. So, how could the beginning have ever arrived let alone the time for the appearance of 'you'?

And another way: How could eternal non-existence become existence for awile and then eternal non-existence again?

It would seem there would have to be only one or the other..eternal non-existence or eternal existence. Wouldn't it be impossible for one to be interupted by the other if both were eternal?

There is existence because we all can say "I am".. unless.. we are not and just think we are which doesn't seem to make sense.. unless.. Ultimate Reality somehow is not any sort of 'thing'. Perhaps that is what we really are/not.

Therefore...

I take you to the brink but I can't do it for you.

[mysti]

tuscon:

"Even before the beginning time passed endlessly even though there were no clocks."

Before the begining, there was no passing of time because time did not exist.

Eternity and infinity are mental constructs which circumscribe the limits of the mind's capacity to grasp reality beyond time and space.

Infinity implies that which cannot be known or realized by consciousness or awareness, but if it cannot be realized, how can it be said to exist?

[Tucson]

Mysti,

I said: "For those who like to think in linear sequentiality:"

--I was using the limits of the conceptual construct that followed that lead-in to attempt to illustrate that whatever is reality is not conceivable as any sort of 'thing' that can be known objectively. Also, to possibly deliver one to the point of intuitive insight that brings clarity to what IS.

You said: "Infinity implies that which cannot be known or realized by consciousness or awareness, but if it cannot be realized, how can it be said to exist?"

--Infinity is not known except as BEING the awareness that is its functioning. That awareness can be said to neither exist nor not exist because in being that awareness there is no one to know it or not know it.
One... and no other to know it.

[Leland]

I think it is a mistake to believe one's own ego is not self promoting. Once one has become ego less, then one might be able to see what each moment teaches us without blinders.

However, a teacher appears when the student is ready. A student appears when one admits not to know. If there was nothing to learn then nothing would come to be known. One can become truly wise in admitting that one does not really know anything. This type of thinking opens the universe to our thoughts. Whereas, the other closes it off.

A real guru doesn't tell you what you want to hear. A real guru makes you think about what you don't want to think about.

The only way to be free thinker is to let go of being in control of your thoughts. When you derive pleasure from your thoughts, then you have paid a price for them and they were not free.

[Tucson]

"If there was nothing to learn then nothing would come to be known. One can become truly wise in admitting that one does not really know anything."

--To me, the greatest "wisdom" is knowing one will NEVER know anything except BEING everything. Everything is as what I am.